Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 871
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
A. Arun
Versus
Registrar Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Coimbatore & Others
W.P. No. 2956 of 2008
Decided On: 12-02-2013
For the Petitioner:N. Manokaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Abdul Saleem, R2, E. Manoharan, R3, AL. Gandhimathi, Advocates.
The prospectus for admission has the force of law, and both the institution and the student are bound by its provisions. The public notice issued by AICTE cannot override the provisions of the prospectus.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Refund of College Fees - AICTE Act, Section 10(n) - Summary of Acts and Sections: AICTE Act, Section 10(n) - The court discussed the AICTE Act, Section 10(n) which empowers AICTE to issue directions regarding fee refund and withdrawal from courses. The court emphasized the binding nature of the prospectus and the institution's rules for admission, highlighting that the prospectus has the force of law and both the institution and the student are bound by its provisions. The court also noted that the public notice issued by AICTE cannot override the provisions of the prospectus. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules and regulations set forth in the prospectus for admission.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to refund the college fees after withdrawing from the course. The petitioner had joined a course at the 1st respondent university but subsequently got admission at another university and requested to withdraw. The respondents refunded a partial amount but refused to refund the balance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for a refund of the entire fee was not justified as the prospectus, which has the force of law, clearly stated the rules for fee refund. The court emphasized that the petitioner had joined the course and left it in between, and had not challenged the order of the 1st respondent declining the refund request. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's entitlement to a refund of college fees after withdrawing from the course, the applicability of the AICTE Act, and the binding nature of the prospectus for admission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prospectus for admission has the force of law and both the institution and the student are bound by its provisions. The court emphasized that the public notice issued by AICTE cannot override the provisions of the prospectus. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the rules and regulations set forth in the prospectus for admission.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing 1st and 2nd respondents to return the entire dues of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) due to the petitioner in view of withdrawal from the course.
2. In support of the petition, it is pleaded, that in the counselling held on 26.06.2007, the petitioner was admitted in B.Tech (EEE) Degree course under single window system vide admission No.50 of 2007. In pursuance to the admission, the petitioner joined the course on 20.07.2007. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) towards counselling and admission fees, Rs.33,850/-(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty only) towards college fee under various heads and another sum of Rs.4,600/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Six Hundred only) towards hostel fees. The amount was paid on 18.07.2007.
3. It is submitted, that the 1st respondent had started admitting students even before commencement of the counselling for courses by the Anna University. It was on account of this, that the petitioner chose to join the course with the 1st respondent university.
4. It is further submitted, that the petitioner subsequently was selected for admission to Anna University and got admission at Bannariamman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam in pursuance to the counselling conducted by the Anna University on 02.08.2007. The petitioner accordingly requested the 1st respondent university to allow him to withdraw his admission to join Anna University.
5. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner stayed in hostel for few days and after the classes commenced, the petitioner opted to leave the institution, and accordingly made request to the respondents to return his original certificates, so as to enable him to join B.E. Civil courses at Sathyamangalam.
6. It is the case of the petitioner, that while returning the original certificate, the 1st and 2nd respondents did not return the fee deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore sought refund of the entire fee collected from him after deducting the processing fee of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in view of the instruction of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), which reads as under:
"In the event of a student / candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given admissions against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the process fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution / University to the student / candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for institutions and universities to retain the School / Institution Leaving certificates in original. Should a student have after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission the Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.
Any violation of instructions issued by the AICTE shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition of erring institutions and Universities. AICTE shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions."
7. It is submitted, that this public notice was issued in exercise of power conferred with AICTE under Section 10(n) of the AICTE Act. The father of petitioner made a representation dated 11.08.2008 asking for refund of entire amount, after deducting sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only).
8. In pursuance to the representation sent by the father of petitioner, the respondents refunded a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) and refused to refund the balance amount.
9. The reply by the 1st respondent i
